Interview with science-to-policy expert François Busquet from Altertox

This successful collaboration with Altertox resulted in an Exchange of Views in the public health committee of the European Parliament on ‘AI in Healthcare’ and has led to several other opportunities for engagement, as documented in the VPH Annual Report. Who better to explain the importance of engaging with policy makers than the founder of Altertox, Francois Busquet.

Can you explain a little bit about your scientific background and about Altertox?

I am a French biotech engineer and toxicologist, with a PhD obtained in the industry at Merck in Germany. I then worked at the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), where I supported the coordination of the validation of alternative test methods for the OECD.

Since 2012, I have been working in science-to-policy in Brussels. When I relocated there, I founded Altertox. The purpose of the company is to translate life science research into lasting policy impact, ensuring that science becomes an integral component of EU policymaking and lawmaking, for the benefit of European citizens.

Why (and when) should scientists care about policy?

We are clearly shifting from “Science 1.0” to “Science 2.0”.

Traditionally, scientists were trained to publish their results and assume that being identified as an expert would be sufficient for policymakers to pick up and use their work. This is no longer true. Today, in the world where the amount of knowledge doubles every minute, science must be actively fed into the policy process.

Scientists need to understand what kind of science they are producing—fundamental or applied—and whether they are engaging in science-to-policy or policy-to-science. They must also be clear about what they are delivering. Law/Policymakers are extremely busy and tend to dismiss inputs that are not aligned with their work plans. Based on my experience, science-to-policy engagement can follow three main approaches:

1. Policy monitoring and alignment
   Closely monitoring the work programmes of the European Commission and the European Parliament and feeding relevant scientific evidence into ongoing policy processes.
2. Awareness-raising
   Generating visibility around a topic without linking it to a specific legislative initiative—pure communication strategy.
3. Addressing blind spots
   Bringing to policymakers’ attention critical issues or “dead angles” that are not yet properly addressed but require political or regulatory action.

This third approach is exactly where initiatives like VPH have been particularly effective in recent years, especially regarding in silico medicine for medical devices.

The maturity of a topic and the cohesion of the scientific community are crucial when engaging with policymakers. This was something I particularly valued in the VPH community, with its depth, coherent discussions, and well-developed models illustrated through case studies.

Last point, timing also matters. The scientific knowledge cycle is rarely synchronized with political decision-making timelines. This creates a cognitive challenge for scientists, who often wait for incontrovertible evidence before engaging with policymakers, while also trying to demonstrate applications without overselling what the data can support. As a result, waiting for the “perfect moment” to intervene may be theoretically sound but is, in practice, frequently ineffective. The key is to build long-term relationships and trust between the scientific and law/policymaking communities, so they can move forward together despite uncertainty.

Science is becoming more demanding. How can people contribute without talking directly to policymakers?

You’re absolutely right—we live in a world of specialization.

Not every scientist needs to engage directly with policymakers. Profiles that combine scientific expertise with a policy “appetite” are a key part of a broader strategy. It’s like a team: not everyone needs to be a salesperson, but you need people who are good at it and can be trusted.

The same applies to European projects: success depends on complementary partners and skills. Individually, this is impossible; collectively, it is manageable.

A few years ago, together with colleagues from the JRC, I helped develop training courses on informing evidence-based policymaking, aimed at raising awareness and generating appetite for these skills within the scientific community. This is something I am always happy to share and to train peers on.

How can we avoid policy being a ‘tick-box exercise’ in scientific projects?

This is a critical issue.

In many EU projects, despite “impact” accounting for a significant share of evaluation criteria, communication, dissemination and policy engagement often represent only 5–10% of the project budget. Universities and research teams understandably prefer to invest resources in producing knowledge rather than disseminating it.

During JRC training sessions on informed evidence, I often asked a simple question: If you are given two extra weeks before an oral presentation, do you generate more data or improve how you present your message? In 99% of cases, people choose to generate more data.

The problem is that without understanding your target audience needs, their level of knowledge, the messages you want to convey, simply copying and pasting scientific publications will miss the mark. That’s when policy engagement becomes a tick-box exercise rather than a source of real impact.

Scientists are trained to answer questions and generate new ones, but they must also be able to explain why those answers matter, and to whom. Communication should follow an inverted pyramid: start with the goal, the value, and the impact, not with the data.

Everyone can produce a newsletter, a social media post, or a brochure—but for what purpose? Who is the audience? What is the message? What evidence supports it? What mapping and analysis underpin the strategy?

If dissemination and communication are not driven by purpose and impact, frustration will continue to grow—both among scientists and policymakers. The issue lies in the middle: policymakers may struggle with scientific complexity, but scientists also need to understand how their work can be used by different audiences and “package” it accordingly.

Until that reflection becomes part of scientific culture, science risks being seen as an add-on rather than a core driver of policy—and that needs to change.

Thank you very much, François, for these clear answers targeted precisely for this newsletter’s readership. We look forward to continuing our collaboration!

Discover more on Altertox